IRAN-U.S.

Anonymous-2 ,What you’re

Anonymous-2 ,What you’re failing to realize and until you realize this, you wouldn’t be able to understand the new world order, the globalization of Islamic fundamentalism. Iran, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah,Abu Sayyaf, Al Qaeda and others ..All work under the same umbrella: global Islamic Terrorism. They all have common enemies, most notably humanity and modernism, so besides the numerous public statements of ties between most or all of them, even if at times they bumped heads like Taliban and Iran did, that doesn’t mean they are not working together now. I’m not sure why those few Iranians after experiencing the horror of Islamic regime in Iran, are not able to realize that! Even if we, for the sake of argument, believe that at times Iran and Taliban were so ideologically apart (!!) that they were sworn enemies, that doesn’t mean they can’t co operate now against a common enemy. Didn’t Iran and Iraq ripped each other a part for 8 years? Look at them now! You wrote: Warmongering – U.S. or Iran? You can’t be serious! There is no question about who is the warmonger – the United States – this is a known fact; all you have to do is take a look at all the wars and atrocities committed by the U.S. History does not lie!:”. Ok lets compare history and some political analysis. The current U.S system of government has been in place since late 1700s or so. That’s almost 200 years. Until the second WW, U.S took a more isolationist approach to world politics. During WWII, it was attacked first before it got involved in the war, and when it entered the war, it defeated one of the biggest fascist regimes of all time and liberated tens of countries who will always be grateful to them. Even anti U.S French president like Chirac admitted that, and so did Schroeder, because facts are facts. Even if we consider some of the smallest wars pre and post WWII, the U.S, even though was facing with threats, did not take the aggressive occupational military policy around the world compare to the threats it was facing. What about the IRI? There is a simple math to do there, it has been in power for 30 years now, and it took us through the longest war of the 20th century which took 8 years. Pre and post the Iran Iraq war we have been engaged in cold war conditions with most of our neighbors and many countries around the world. So please you do the math. 8 years of war versus 30 years being in power. With regards to the U.S, we as Iranians, need to sit down and think why is the IRI provoking the U.S for the last 30 years? Is it justified? What the U.S done to us that we suddenly became anti U.S nation # 1 , ironically with a population that this mostly pro U.S ? Compare ourselves to other countries that experienced foreign intervention. Did we interfere in others affairs at all or not? What is the price we’re paying for being anti U.S government # 1 in the world? Is it justified? Reasonable? Makes sense? Have we recovered from U.S past interventions (for the sake of the argument)? How we should we response to foreign intervention (If there has been or are any)? Are we acting as civilized, 21st century government and people or are we asking for NAFAS KESH? Those are the questions we need to ask ourselves. And the most important question Iranian leftists and IRI apologists need to ask themselves is: is the constant, blind, unreasonable belief in conspiracy theories and viewing reality as conspiracy is a sign of A- Intelligence and (allegedly) interpreting behind the scenes realities or B – Madness and distortion of reality, twisting logic and killing reason? You wrote: If it was not for Iran, the U.S. would not have been able to bring down the Taliban and put in place the current president of Afghanistan”. You can’t be serious! This must be a joke! My friend, how on earth can you compare U.S military power with Taliban? Or even China? The reason U.S asked for N Alliance and others assistance was because the U.S acted (As much as it could) responsibly in the Afghanistan (and by the way had the world full support) in order to avoid as many civilian causalities and U.S soldier causalities as possible. If this was a full scale war where the U.S would’ve attacked Afghanistan in order to attack the country, and not the ruling government, Afghanistan would’ve been wiped off the map in 24 hours, and it would’ve needed to use minimal air power to accomplish that with few causalities. Offcourse that means millions in civilian casualties, that’s why it didn’t do that. You wrote” In Iraq, we already had 1 million innocent civilians killed, another 4 million who have been displaced, and 500,000 Iraqi children which already died because of sanctions imposed during the Clinton Administration this brings the total death rate to 1.5 million; with many others who are wounded and infected with radiation’ The true #s are not even the topic of our discussion because even one civilian death should be avoided. However, what’s going on in Iraq is a power struggle between fascist fanatic groups, many of them inspired and supported by Iran. The U.S invasion acted as a revolution in Iraq, which left a power vacuum for these groups to operate in. The U.S made a mistake there, but it’s not the official or unofficial U.S policy to murder civilians in Iraq, although it’s happening now because the U.S army is been trapped in a civil war. You wrote” Was the real motive of the Americans in World War II to stop the genocide against Jewish people? It took this nation awhile to enter that war, and it did so only after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Then it dropped two atomic weapons on innocent Japanese civilians, incinerating hundreds of thousands instantly, and causing still hundreds of thousands more deaths in years to come due to radiation exposure”. Please read my argument above. Hiroshima was wrong, shouldn’t’ve happened, but, 1- that was only one part of the WWII conflict, the conflict ended by American soldiers dying freeing tens of countries from oppression, including Japan itself. 2- A question for you, how come the Japanese who had their civilians killed like that do not hold grudge against the U.S nearly, and I mean nearly, as much as we Iranians do? And why Japan is now, through American assistant, a major superpower? And Iran is what it is? Whats the difference between us and Japanese? Maybe you can explain to me! I think Iranian leftist and regime apologists talk about Hiroshima much more than Hiroshima residents do themselves! You wrote : In 1950, during the Korean War, American soldiers murdered hundreds of Korean civilians — again, many of them women and children — under the bridge at No Gun Ri.” One answer , same as Japan. South Korea is a major super power now. Iranians go to Japan and Korea to work as labors; I don’t see Japanese and Korean youth go to Iran for that. South Koreans live in prosperity, freedom and dignity, while their communist cousins in the North are been starved to death and shot to death. Countries such as Iran, N Korea, Syria, Cuba, …have isolated their people so much as if they live in a different planet. The rest of your essay is basically a communist-themed anti U.S propaganda essay when you talk about past U.S and European (By the way, 2 very different histories, and not sure why you combined them both) intervention. It is a communist and IRI regime-themed interpretation of world events, so it’s not based on facts or numbers, because your argument is so flawed and unreasonable and ideologically driven and simply historically wrong because of the reasons I mentioned above. One thing that we and you leftist IRI apologists do not have in common is that we use logic and facts and do not view things through an ideological lens and do not have blind hatred for anyone.

Anonymous-2

You have a lot to say, have you thought about writing an article?

Insha'allah Mullahs will be saved

//www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/231764

To: Farhad Kashani - I did stop and think

On the issue of Afghanistan, it is a known fact, that Iran was already involved in fighting the Talibans way before the U.S. went in. It already had significant relationships with the Northern Alliance which was of significant value for the U.S. who had never been in Afghanistan; Iran’s assistance in no way was minimal.

If it was not for Iran, the U.S. would not have been able to bring down the Talibans and put in place the current president of Afghanistan. Even then Iran was involved in direct negotiations on behalf of the U.S. so that the Northern Alliance would agree to step aside and accept the new President!!

Warmongering – U.S. or Iran? You can’t be serious! There is no question about who is the warmonger – the United States – this is a known fact; all you have to do is take a look at all the wars and atrocities committed by the U.S. History does not lie!:

The U.S. is currently involved in two wars:

• Iraq; and
• Afghanistan

In Iraq, we already had 1 million innocent civilians killed, another 4 million who have been displaced, and 500,000 Iraqi children which already died because of sanctions imposed during the Clinton Administration this brings the total death rate to 1.5 million; with many others who are wounded and infected with radiation. There are currently 4,000 U.S. soldiers who have been killed, and 60,000+ who have been injured and/or psychologically impaired

Afghanistan hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians killed and still continuing

By the way you would be appalled if you listened to the Iraqi, and Afghan War Veterans who have returned back and explained what they have committed;

just to give you a flavor:

Speakers from the Army and Marine Corps. — recounted the atrocities that they not only witnessed but participated in. Anyone who is interested can listen online at www.ivaw.org/wintersoldier. .
 “The stories they were telling about the rules of engagement they learned while training at boot camp, or on a military base “back home”, were shocking. The photographs they were showing on the five viewing screens of bloodied bodies torn apart by close gunfire, 50-calibre Machine guns, rocket launchers, and every other weapon our great military industrial complex has created, were all too familiar to me.
 “Watching and listening to the testimony made me very ill. Here were these young men and women, handsomely dressed, some wearing medals, talking about how they shot civilians who were holding nothing more threatening than a cell phone, groceries, a shovel, a white flag, or a pair of binoculars. Anyone deemed suspicious by the particular soldier or Marine on watch was fair game, subject to the orders, “Take ‘em out!” The Rules of Engagement, as stated by Garrett Rapenhagen were “a joke and disgrace, and ever changing.”
 “I knew that. I had heard it back home from my son. He told me he had to survive; he had to protect his buddies, so that they could all come home alive. They didn’t know who the enemy was, so they would just “blast them away.” The Marines are taught that. They shoot and don’t even ask questions. Their motto is “Kill ‘em all and let God sort them out!”
 “Camilo Mejia, who is the chair of IVAW, spoke about how soldiers were trained that dehumanizing the enemy is necessary to survival, and how they are taught to think of Iraqis as “hajjis”. In fact, all of the panel members said Iraqi citizens were repeatedly referred to as hajjis. I know that word all too well; I have heard my son talk about it, as well as other anti-Iraqi slurs such as “towel head,” and “sand nigger.” The expression “if you feel threatened, use your weapon” was also a familiar phrase to me. So, too, was the slogan, “Do what you need to do.” That meant that you use your rifle anytime, and you can crush whoever you want with your vehicle in the street.”
 “Members on the panel recounted how, when they were bored, they blew up dogs and other animals to keep themselves entertained. All too well I had heard these stories, which gave me the creeps more than anything else. I also heard the testimony of former Cpl. Matt Childers, who said that after American soldiers had already beaten and starved detainees in their custody, one of them removed a hat from one of the detainees’ heads and smeared it with his own feces, before feeding it to one of the prisoners who was so hungry that he actually attempted to eat it.”
 One other Marine, — was Bryan Casler. Casler was part of the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. He described Marines taking their MRE’s (Meals Ready to Eat) which were in plastic bags, and defecating in them before tossing them out to Iraqi children on the side of the road. Those who picked them up would think they were food and attempt to eat the contents. Casler also said soldiers would urinate in bottles and throw them at children. They would also remove the chemical packets that were within the MREs (which helped heat the food) and hand them to children to eat. He said that when they went into Babylon, the marines would drive vehicles into mosques and historic ruins, and break off pieces to take home with them.
 Some of the soldiers’ testimony was characterized by defiant anger. At the end of his testimony, former Marine Mike Totten ripped up the commendation he had received from General Petraeus, and threw it on the floor in front of him, to a huge applause. One day earlier, former Marine Jon Turner had taken a chest full of medals and thrown them into the audience. “I don’t work for you anymore!” Turner said. At the end of his heart-wrenching account of the atrocities he had witnessed or committed, Turner begged the Iraqi people for forgiveness.’

Let’s also not forget how the U.S. treated close to 800 prisoners held in Gitmo, majority of which were innocent; as well as Abu Gharib. I am sure you don’t need a reminder of the horrors that took place in those two prisons.

Let’s now go back to the other wars – was the U.S. motive for a humanitarian cause? No!!

WWII:

Was the real motive of the Americans in World War II to stop the genocide against Jewish people? It took this nation awhile to enter that war, and it did so only after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Then it dropped two atomic weapons on innocent Japanese civilians, incinerating hundreds of thousands instantly, and causing still hundreds of thousands more deaths in years to come due to radiation exposure.

Was that heroic? No, it was malicious and vengeful, and meant nothing to the security of American shores. People died at Pearl Harbor, the damage was done, so now it was time to pay back the Japanese one-thousand fold

U.S. military might equals imperialism. Solidifying the U.S. position atop the imperialist ladder was the real motivation for American entry into World War II, and in fact it has essentially been the motivating factor for every war waged against other countries by this nation’s military...

The U.S. trains our soldiers and Marines to kill, and to be merciless. They have the best weapons that our money can buy, and are trained to use them on the enemy, whether they are innocent civilians or someone who is actually threatening their lives directly. It is indiscriminate killing at the behest of a government that is seeking to terrify the world into submission to American empire.

Indeed, the history of the U.S. Armed Forces is littered with war crimes in pursuit of a domestic and global “manifest destiny” to achieve greater lands and resources. Keep in mind that the United States as we know it today would not exist were it not for the military’s systematic decimation of first Native Americans, and then Mexicans, in the most unspeakable ways imaginable. During the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864, the U.S. Cavalry murdered hundreds of Native Americans — many of them women and children — in what is today Colorado.

Or consider a recent article in the New Yorker, entitled, “The Water Cure: Debating Torture and Counterinsurgency - A Century Ago.”

After helping free The Philippines from Spanish colonialism, the American conquerors unleashed their wrath on those whom they were supposedly liberating (sound familiar?) As the dawn of the 20th century approached, American troops slaughtered civilians, burned down entire villages, and –yes– waterboarded prisoners.

In 1950, during the Korean War, American soldiers murdered hundreds of Korean civilians — again, many of them women and children — under the bridge at No Gun Ri. The Associated Press won a Pulitzer Prize in 2000 for its series of articles exposing this crime against humanity; the pieces centered on interviews with former U.S. veterans who had carried out the slaughter.

During the Vietnam War, U.S. forces murdered more than one million Indochinese civilians, employing in the process horrific chemical weapons such as napalm and Agent Orange, which burnt the skin of its victims. During the first Winter Soldier hearings, Vietnam Veterans testified about routinely murdering, disemboweling, and raping Vietnamese civilians, throwing bound prisoners out of helicopters to their deaths, and torching villages.

In fact, the final day of Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan marked the 40th anniversary of one of the most infamous war crimes in U.S. history. On March 16, 1968, U.S. troops entered the village of My Lai and murdered hundreds of men, women, and children — young and old — raping some of the women and bayoneting elderly men.

The systematic crimes against humanity that are mentioned above represent only a small percentage of the atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers under the direct leadership of their Commander-in-Chiefs, and they do not even touch on the countless instances of war-crimes-by-proxy carried out throughout the globe by the CIA, and by various puppet regimes installed by the U.S. government.

We are not even speaking about the atrocities committed by Western powers during the colonial era against the Muslim world.

During the past 200 years the European Super Powers and the United States have always been the aggressors against the Muslim world. Since the beginning of the colonial era millions of Arab civilians have been killed. The West is clearly at the top of the league when it comes to killing, by a ratio of more than ten to one.

The current debate about the Muslim world’s alleged propensity to violence is a mockery of historical facts. The West was and is much more violent than the Muslim World. The problem of our time in not the violence of the Muslim World but the violence of some Western countries.

Young Muslim women, children, and men are killed by Western weapons, Western allies, and Western soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Somalia and elsewhere..

After the official end of colonial rule in the Middle East, the colonial powers were replaced by financially and militarily dependent puppet regimes, pawns in the geopolitical game of Western super powers. Whoever fails to act in accordance with this law is ousted or subjected to a concerted media campaign and branded as a ‘rogue’.

Using the media to create villains is a specialty of Western foreign policy. As the example of Gaddafi shows, the title ‘rogue’ can be revoked at any time.

Even Saddam Hussein, a ‘partner’ who was renamed a ‘rogue’ might still be doing as he pleased, even today, had he remained a partner of the United States.

The massacre of Dujail, in which 148 people died and for which Saddam was executed, occurred 26 years ago in 1982. At that time Saddam was, for the United States, an important player in the Middle East and waged war with Western support against Iran.

He was after all the West’s anti-Islamist-comrade-in-arms; he was supplied with chemical and biological weapons, Mirage fighters; and satellite data on Iranian positions by the U.S., Germany and France. During this war not only did both sides incur over one million deaths, Iran also has over one million chemical victims which are dying a slow and excruciating death; and thanks to the U.S. sanctions they can’t go to Western countries for medical attention.

In the Mideast, the West has never showed any interest in human rights, or democracy; it was fighting for oil!!

Cynical dehumanization in the name of human rights, with the bloody images from Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries has left a deep mark in Muslims’ cultural memory. Is it a surprise for anyone why there is a rise in extremism?

Samuel Huntington was right on at least one point:

“The West won the World not by superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerner’s often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

As such, I wouldn’t compare Iran’s inflammatory rhetoric of calling the U.S. the “Great Satan”, comparable in anyway to all that the U.S. has committed in action against Iran and the Muslim World. Let’s get real!

"In an article entitled 2008

"In an article entitled 2008 and The Iranian Economy’s Big Question Mark, Tabnak.ir described the Iranian economy as experiencing an “exceptionally bad” run. While official figures are unreliable and often padded, this year’s government stats paint a pessimistic mid-term picture. The author warns that a global economic slowdown and a weakening dollar could combine to make 2008 Iran’s “last chance” to use oil proceeds to diversify its economy:

Oil revenues grew by $12 billion to $75 billion in 2007, but real GDP grew only .5%, to 6.7%, indicating “misapplication of oil wealth to the industrial and productive sectors.”
MEMRI’s Iran Economy blog quotes ISNA as reporting a decline in real GDP from 5.8 to 5.4% from 2006-2007. The same source predicts sanctions will push this figure down to 4.9-5.2% in 2008, and a few tenths of a percent lower annually until 2011 [By comparison, real GDP growth was 4.7% in 1998-1999].
Growth in Iran’s oil sector stood unchanged at 5.7 %, “indicating crisis” in Foreign Direct Investment, particularly with respect to resources shared with neighboring states [Tabnak]
The International Herald Tribune on March 25 quoted Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari as saying Iran’s daily oil production had reached 4.21 million barrels per day, of which 2.5 million was for export.
Non-oil exports including gas and petrochemical derivatives generated revenue in 2007 of $20 billion. Non-oil related exports (netted of derivatives) totaled $8 billion [Tabnak].
By contrast, Iran last year imported $53 billion of foreign goods, putting pressure on domestic manufactures [Tabnak].
[Despite announced privatization initiatives] the public sector grew last year, tracking an increase of 17% in the national budget [Tabnak]."
//forums.csis.org/iran/?p=29

Anonymous-2, you wrote”

Anonymous-2, you wrote” Also don't forget that Iran also assisted the U.S. in the fall of the Talibans only for President Bush to label it as one of the "Axis of Evils". Are you simplifying the U.S- Iranian relations just to that one incident? What about the other 30 years the regime has been in power provoking, bashing and engaging in anti U.S policies? The regime helped (minimally) the U.S in Afghanistan because it was scared , not because it believed in reconciliation with the U.S. In the last 30 years, the marg-bar-America slogan was absence only during 1 Friday prayer : the one directly after 9/11. Bush declared Iran an evil regime in February of 2002. You do the math. Even for the sake of “you guys” argument, if we think the regime is not serious in its anti U. S slogans (which I would not believe it is not serious for a second), then why the provocation? Explain that. Why are we provoking a (according to you guys: a cowboy, gun loving, war mongering nation)? Are they the war mongerers or the regime in Tehran? Stop and think for a second!

With all do respect with Mr.

With all do respect with Mr. Ross, it is because of the inability of your and other U.S administrations to realize the Iranian threat, that the situation is what it is now. Did Mr. Ross forget that the regime itself confessed that it has been pursuing nuclear “energy” (!!) policy for the last 20 something years? Where was Clinton administration on that? Mr. Ross, you were envoy to the Middle East and couldn’t reach a peace solution between Israel and Palestine because of the one sidedness with Israel. Your administration failed to recognize the Islamic fundamentalist threat (According to statements from President Clinton himself), so I’m not sure Mr. Ross, if you understand the bigger picture here. the problem is that some of you guys believe that the problem with Iran is its nuclear threat, (Just as the Bush administration did in the beginning), ayatollah Khamenei himself said in a Friday prayer that the west shouldn’t fear our nuclear bombs, because we have 10 million basidji “nuclear bombs” (i.e. human terrorist suicide bomb machines). That is where the problem starts, the inability for the west, (and some Iranians), to look at the big picture. What the world failed to realize until recently is that the threat the regime poses is its inspiration and support for international fundamental Islamic ideas and groups. You have to understand what that policy means to the IRI. Mr. Ross, you believe that a “negotiation table” would be able to convince Iran to stop engaging in that policy? Regards.

I don't believe either one of these reports!!

I don't believe either one of the two reports.

First McCain is not smart enough to think in such terms.

Second; there is absolutely no way that Iran is negotiating with the U.S.; are you kidding, Iran doesn’t trust Russia, China, India, Pakistan, any of the Arab countries, or Turkey, let alone the U.S.

Third, you should not forget that the U.S. has already played this trick during the Iran-Iraq war, when the CIA was providing both sides with information so that they could destroy eacy others economies and infrastructure.

Also don't forget that Iran also assisted the U.S. in the fall of the Talibans only for President Bush to label it as one of the "Axis of Evils".

Why should Iran trust the U.S.; what good will has the U.S. shown Iran during the past 30 years; for Iran to suddenly start negotiating with the U.S.!!

Iran is not dumb to fall for this trick.

I believe the U.S. is simply trying to use Iran as a bait; Iraqi Arabs are killing each other, the country is getting weaker by the day, giving the US an excuse to keep its bases in Iraq and then place the blame on Iran.

Cheney has already given assurance to Israel that it will be protected:

//www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/midd...

HIP HIP HOORAY!

We're in the money .... we're in the money

"U.S. moves toward engaging

"U.S. moves toward engaging Iran"

"The coming few weeks are going to be critical in the standoff between the United States and Iran as the upheaval in the Middle East reaches a turning point. And all options do remain on the table, as the George W Bush administration likes to say, from military conflict to a de facto acceptance of Iran's standing as the region's dominant power.

One thing is clear. The time for oratorical exercises is ending. A phase of subtle, reciprocal, conceptual diplomatic actions may be beginning. An indication of this is available in the two radio interviews given by Bush last weekend and beamed into Iran, exclusively aimed at reaching out to the Iranian public on the Persian New Year Nauroz.
Significantly, ahead of Bush's interviews, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger spoke. Kissinger, incidentally, is a foreign policy advisor to the Republican Party's presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. For the first time, Kissinger called for unconditional talks with Iran. That is a remarkable shift in his position. Kissinger used to maintain that the legacy of the hostage crisis during the Iranian revolution in 1979 and "the messianic aspect of the Iranian regime" represented huge obstacles to diplomacy, and combining with "Persian imperial tradition" and "contemporary Islamic fervor", a collision with the US became almost unavoidable. Interestingly, Kissinger's call was also echoed by Dennis Ross, who used to be a key negotiator in the Middle East, and carries much respect in Israel.
...

Bush spoke of the evolution of the Iranian regime's character rather than its overthrow. The criticism, if any, of Iranian government policies approached nowhere near the diatribes of the past. There was none of the boastful claims that the US would work toward isolating Iran in its region and beyond. In fact, Bush acknowledged, "There's a chance that the US and Iran can reconcile their differences, but the [Iranian] government is going to have to make different choices. And one [such choice] is to verifiably suspend the enrichment of uranium, at which time there is a way forward."

read the rest:

//www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04....

The secret American-Iranian

The secret American-Iranian deal in Iraq

Mar 26, 2008
The secret American-Iranian security deal in Iraq, and how this connected to McCain’s visit to IsraelArab onlinenewspaper published in London, is the only newspaper to report this a week ago but I waited few days to see if there is any development provides evidence to the newspaper claims, and the military campaign in Basra was what i am waiting for.

Arab online says that there are secret Iranian – American negotiations at Ahmadinejad’s visit to Iraq [please remember there were other developments in this week period, like the U.S. embassy refused to meet the Iranian delegation…etc]

The report contains details and names of people who attended the meeting from both sides which we don’t need here, so this is what the newspaper said in short:

Ahmadinejad offered to calm the situation in Iraq, using the three days attacks-free visit to Iraq as a demonstration of what can Iran do, the second offer is to accept the long term Iraqi – American agreement

To remove Iraq from the 1546 U.N. resolution, which gives the permission for the “Coalition Forces” to use force any Iraq’s neighboring country, if intelligence reports give evidence that the country exporting terrorism to Iraq, there is also a chapter allowing American forces to use Iraqi territory to attack another countries.

- To end all American – European political and logistic support for the Iranian opposition, especially Iran’s Resistance Council Organization, Pijac Kurdish organization, and other small opposition groups [Arabs, Turkmen, Azari…etc].

- Stop the secret and public American administration incitement of toppling the Iranian regime.

- End the U.S. and Europe campaign to push for the Iranian Jews immigration to Israel.

- To put an end to the campaign of the need to for pre-emptive strikes against selective and sensitive intelligence, military and nuclear Iranian sites.

The most important part of these negotiations is; What Iran can do for the U.S. in Iraq:

Ahmadinejad mentioned that he is negotiating with a previous blessing from Ayatollah Khamenei, and that’s reassured the Americans about the seriousness of the negotiations.

So, Ahmadinejad commitments are: Click on the link:

//www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/03/26/the-secret-a...

Iranian people on their own are HELPLESS & u know it

anonymouswhateva

I think you guys are all one and the same rolled into one!

According to you who seem to speak on behalf of all Iranians and are obviously their self-declared rep on this site, gharb-zadeh Iranians in Northern Tehran do not count, Iranian expats and exiles surely do not count, RP/MKO/NCRI/JM, etc. etc., heaven forbid, do not count, the rest of the Iranian population inside, who happen to not have a string attached to mullahs and regime, obviosuly do not count either, since if they did, their basic fundamental civil and human rights would not be abused/violated on a daily basis as we all know no matter how deeply we stick our heads in the sand.
SO I ask you, who counts? the mullahs ruling over Iran and their cronies on this site?!!!!!!

Remember that a lot of Eastern European countries could never eventually liberate themselves from the bondage of Communism if it weren't for American financial and logistical help.

Strangely, you seem to be against any sort of "civil unrest" or disobedience as well. so what are you FOR? the continued tyrannical rule of mullahs?

Again I would like to remind you

That those like Mr. Ross are not interested in solving problems, they are the problem. You are speaking to the enemy!

Could you imagine dedicating (in this case wasting) your life in studying a region, and all you can come up with is the same as a politically uneducated individual, what would anyone do?

1) economical pressure

2) war

Regardless of the realities that we know about and history that we should've learned from.

So what has Mr. Ross learn from his years of studies? Nothing?

I would argue that he knows, but his agenda is different. He fools many by the title that he holds and his book, but I am glad to see that he fails to fool the majority of Iranian American community. His agenda is doomed, but I assume that is what he is seeking, dooming the region for his party's gain.

To: Hogwarsh - obviously you have no self-respect!

You got the terminology of "traitor" wrong.

Traitors are those who sell their country and their people to foreigners. And no many of us have not been detached from Iran in fact quite the opposite.

For your information, regardless of how much the Iranian people like Americans they are against U.S. Foreign Policy and meddling into the affairs of Iran. Unless of course you are speaking about some of the gharb-zadeh Iranians in Northern Tehran; they don't count!

Talk for yourself!

Hogwash - you are full of it!!

From what planet are you coming from?

Not one single true blue blooded Persian will ever kneel on their knees begging for help from any foreign government, regardless of how they feel about the regime. There was a reason for the Revolution never to return to the days when Iran was a servant to any foreign power!

It is only traitors such as the terroirst cult of the MEK/NCRI/MOK organization; and the followers of the whimp Reza Pahlavi; none of whom have any credibility inside Iran who are begging for financial and military support from the U.S. and Israel.

These are the same groups who are disseminating fabricated information, sending out pamphlets requesting the Iranian people to demonstrate at football matches, universities; and then screaming bloody murder when the IRI captures the Iranian people for civil unrest. All this while these folks are sitting here in the West enjoying their comfortable life.

Both the MEK/Pahlavi clan are the same groups who are begging the U.S.and European States to impose the harshest sanctions on Iran; to ban the purchase of Iranian oil, and gas, blockade the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf; and squeeze the Iranian people even further.

I wonder how the Iranian people would feel if they knew how these opposition groups are fighting to make their life even more misreable?

Now this is who I call the real traitors!

And the information is available right from both of the horses mouths: Rajavi, R. Pahlavi and his cronies.

If you belong to either one of those groups I don't think you want the information posted and names divulged?!

Shame on them all!

A lot of leftist, anti-US babble

I see a lot of leftist, anti-US diatribe and frankly baseless wishful thinking coming from Mr. bang man.

Iranian people desperatly need whatever help they can get, both financially and logistically, to get rid of mullahs. Those who deny it are either ignorant, or have been away from Iran for too long and quite detached from today's reality in Iran.

Those who know it well but prefer to deny it are the real traitors.

No comment

//www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/03/26/the-secret-a...

Dear Mr. Ross: Bang man has

Dear Mr. Ross:

Bang man has brought up interesting points and I think if the U.S. is to continue its presence in the region, it needs to reframe and restrategize the entire Middle East project. You might want to look into Obama's foreign policy of spreading Dignity instead of democracy...

What would a Middle East without the U.S. look like given that China and Russia will gain an enormous amount of economic and geopolitical leverage??

Can the world (US, EU, and the ME) afford to give China and Russia the stewardship of the world's economy?

Most people (Persian, American, etc.) are intelligent enough to understand nuances. It's time for American leaders to stop treating us as infants who can't grasp abstract concepts.

USA and Israel are clueless about Middel East

First, USA is a bankrupt country.

Real reason behind US clamping down on Iran today is the same as it was 55 years ago.
It has less to do with nuclear threat and more to do with loss of hegemonic power over US petrol
dollar.

Second, as far as IRAN’S future is concerned USA is Irrelevant.
Any Iranian who thinks it is justified to have foreign intervention in Iran of any form is simply a
traitor.

Third, the so called “NUCLEAR threat” is a pretax to manufacture “relevancy” where there is none.

 
Fourth, the only way USA can make itself relevant to Mideast in general and Iran
unparticular is by
A- Illegitimate use or threat of force .i.e. “leverage”
B- By proxy via Israel

Fifth, a war with USA will mean 2 things for sure.
1- In short term a lot of Iranian casualties but in the long term a free M.E.
2- In long term, end of Israel and USA in M.E. and war will expedite US bankruptcy.

So, War in short term bad for Iran but in long term not so bad.

The reason we Iranians do not want war is because we value life and it is not because we are afraid of
war with USA.

Sixth, Akonds days are numbered and they now it. We Iranians if left alone will achieve secular
and democratic government sooner than later. USA and cronies have been a big obstacle and a major distraction.

Finally, I will be sad to see the dumb G.W. Bush go, he has really been instrumental in uncovering the truth about USA and Israel.

Today, the whole world knows when it comes to dealing with USA and Israel; the ability of applying brute force is the only leverage there is.

Life is sweet - Let us keep it that way!

Do not make us  "Kofriom"

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp-nQkzZiN8&feature...

the original Zangalu changed to "ZADALOO"

Happy days are back ... chane "ZADALOO" to ---> USA

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tbv8UNAJ6A&feature...

B.M.

Response to various posters.

I won't reply to each post here on this forum. rather reply in general. Please, let make few things clear and put them in right perspectives.

1. Palestinians and land ownership: It is well established fact to which Arabs don't want others to know. As far back as 1920's, those Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" though lived and worked the land, they never owned it. There were 3 groups which had legal ownership, none of which were the pals. a) The Ottoman Empire. b) Wealthy Arab land owners (Effendis), whom were leasing them to these "Palestinians". c) Land purchased, and paid in full by Jews (through Jewish Agency (what is known as 7% of the land).

2. The Mullahs prospect of withstanding economical pressure from US:
Consider these facts.
Iran exports only 2.5M bbl of oil a day. Oil export make up more then 70% of the regimes annual budgets. Now, with just few "clicks", this regime can be brought to its knees.
a) With a flip of a switch, Saudi Arabia will increase its daily output to 13 or even 15M bbl. Blunting any Iranian threat of oil shortage.
b) It will decrease oil prices and decrease revenue to the Tar-bushah. c) US and Israel will increase their military posture over Iran (which they already do). Force the Mullahs to increase its military expenditure - diverting money from the civilian sector to futile military ventures.
With little money left to spend on public service and particularly when drastic reduction on those gravies spent to keep the public in line are gone. Result of which, public unrest, and rest we all know, collapse of the regime. THIS EXACT TACTIC WAS USED ON FORMER USSR (remember Reagan Star War of the 1980's). It worked then and there, and easily will work on Iran.

Israel vis-a-vis Iran:. As it has been said by another poster. Those who know the Israelis well enough, know it perfectly well that, Israeli real religion is not Judaism, nor "Zionism". Rather, Its religion and cultural is SECURITY and self defense first, then Jewish. Basij or no basij, Israel will waste no time to compromise with their security, and survival. They will act with massive force. With its 3rd rate military power, commanded by a Mullah, Iranian military force will not stand a chance against a first rate military force, headed by some of the most brilliant military commanders in the the world, who spent their life time honing their tools. They will shoot first, ask questions later. (No, Hizbollah did not win any jack shit war against Israel). Israeli leaders are not going to wait until they lose 1 or 2M civilians as result of surprise nuclear attack from lunatics like ahmadi-midget, to tell the rest of the world "we told you so". After all, this is what this backward Islamist had promised to do just that.

I was right.hahaha "All

I was right.hahaha

"All indications are that any receptivity on the part of Khamenei to a negotiated settlement is eclipsed by a fervid, personal contempt for the current US administration.

The key, as many including Ross have written, lies in changing the Iranian calculus into one where the benefits of concessions on the nuclear front far outweigh the negatives. the next President of the United States should pursue this policy of tough action married to tangible, significant offers, all backed up by a stated, credible threat of force. Signaling receptivity to a new style of interaction is exactly what we should be doing. To say one is willing to talk does not seem to rule out implicit preconditions, it just casts aside explicit preconditions.

//forums.csis.org/iran/?p=24

"Sanctions Bill Rears Its

"Sanctions Bill Rears Its Ugly Head"

//irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/

//irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/sanct...

Diplomacy according to the U.S. means Sanctions!!!

Are you kidding - the U.S. version of diplomacy means harsher sanctions, exactly what we believed. The U.S. has no concept of what diplomacy means. All of this talk about diplomacy is a hogwash. They think they can fool Iranians. The intention is to hit the Iranian people exactly where it hurts.

Unfortunately the U.S. has not learned anything from its catastrophic mistakes in Iraq. They are following the same path as they have with Iraq - the end result is to justify a military conflict.

It was the same sanctions under President Clinton which led to the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. This was called diplomacy!

I don't know who Mr. Ross thinks he is fooling?

___________________________________
Sanctions Bill Rears Its Ugly Head
Posted: 26 Mar 2008 11:32 AM CDT
On Tuesday, April 8, the Senate Finance Committee is expected to hold a hearing on the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, S. 970, introduced by Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR). The legislation currently has 70 co-sponsors.

I have been told that Section 10 in S. 970 on World Bank Loans to Iran has been deleted. As a result, there are now jurisdictional issues being worked out between the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Finance Committee and the bill will now also be referred to the Banking Committee. Section 10 would have required reports on the number of loans provided by the World Bank to Iran; the dollar amount of such loans; and the voting record of each member of the World Bank on such loans. It would have also reduced the U.S. contribution to the World Bank for fiscal year 2008 by the same ratio of the total of the amounts provided in the preceding year by the World Bank to entities in Iran to the total of the amounts provided by the Bank to all entities, and for all projects and activities.

One of the biggest shortcomings in U.S. policy towards Iran is that the so-called “diplomatic option” has been defined as sanctions. But, sanctions are punitive measures, not diplomacy. There has been no real diplomacy with Iran and the U.S. has maintained preconditions for negotiations. I am baffled as why there is such a stigma for diplomacy with Iran. Diplomacy is not capitulation to an enemy; it is a strategic and vitally important component of international relations and foreign policy. Let’s not forget that President Reagan negotiated with the “Evil Empire.” And, it has become acceptable under this administration to engage in diplomacy with North Korea, another member of the “axis of evil.”

Unilateral sanctions against Iran are likely to fail. They will continue to push Iran into a corner, where it will be less likely to negotiate and more likely to act out against the U.S. In the past, groups that have favored confrontation between Iran and US have closed small windows of opportunity for diplomacy by pushing to sanction Iran. Unilateral sanctions not only undermine diplomacy with Iran, they also significantly increase the risk of conflict, particularly since there is an absence of U.S. diplomacy with Iran.

In addition to the consequences of attempting to coerce Iran through sanctions mentioned above, another key issue with S. 970 is that it will further undermine U.S. relations with Russia, which is specifically targeted under Section 6 of the bill.

Section 6 of S. 970 essentially threatens Russia to end nuclear and missile cooperation with Iran or the U.S. will not enter into any 123 Agreement for nuclear cooperation with Russia. This has actually been the long-standing policy of both the Clinton and Bush administrations in trying to gain leverage on Russia regarding the issue of Iran. A Section 123 Agreement is the necessary agreement for the U.S. to enter into nuclear cooperation with another country, as stipulated originally in the US Atomic Energy Act. It provides and outlines the “terms, conditions, duration, nature, scope, and other requirements of proposed agreements for cooperation; Presidential exemptions; negotiations; Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement.”

In July, 2006, Presidents Bush and Putin announced they were open to negotiations on an agreement that would permit full nuclear cooperation between the two countries. Russia has long sought a 123 Agreement with the U.S. Nonproliferation experts have noted that a 123 Agreement between the U.S. and Russia could yield important nonproliferation benefits such as providing the international community with greater access to Russia’s civil nuclear facilities. A 123 Agreement could also lead to increased efforts to secure and dismantle Soviet-era nuclear weapons.

Additionally, Russia is also an important partner for any diplomatic efforts with Iran. The U.S. needs Russia’s support to maintain and increase international pressure on Iran, which is more meaningful and will have better results than U.S. unilateral sanctions and coercion. If in fact this section of S. 970 becomes law, Russia could feel threatened and would not have any incentive to be a party to diplomatic efforts to end the political standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

The fact that Russia is cooperating with Iran on the Bushehr reactor is not the heart of the matter and targeting Russia for this cooperation in S. 970 only deters focus from the real issues surrounding the political standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. While the U.S. initially opposed Russian participation in building the Bushehr reactor and supplying it with fuel, the Bush administration changed its position last year in order to get Russian support for United Nations sanctions on Iran. The reversal in the U.S. position on the Bushehr reactor also followed Iran’s agreement to return spent nuclear fuel from the reactor back to Russia to ensure it doesn't extract plutonium to make nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has since been pointing to the Bushehr program to support arguments that Iran does not need a uranium enrichment program.

Instead of pushing forward with legislation that will only undermine prospects for a real solution to U.S.-Iran relations, the Senate should employ a more far-sighted, responsible approach that includes sustained, direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with Iran, and include in such an approach engaging, rather than isolating, strategic allies and partners.

It's amazing that the U.S. keeps using the same failed strategy!

Mr. Ross:

You are taking your own assumptions and twisting them around as if in fact Iran has or is on its way in developing nuclear weapons. The constant use of jargons such as “nuclear weapons” and “WMDs” is not sellable anymore; the U.S. has already used these before!

The only country which has nuclear weapons in the Middle East is Israel, a State which is not a signatory to the NPT and is equipped with 300 to 500 nuclear war heads, and has the 4th largest army thanks to the U.S. tax payers!

It is such a joke to consider Iran as a threat when it is surrounded by nuclear armed states none of which are signatories to the NPT and Russia to its north. We are not even counting the U.S. with all of its military bases surrounding Iran, and its naval warships in the Persian Gulf.

Why would Iran even hope to attack the West or Israel with even a remote prospect of success given the over whelming nuclear and conventional second strike capability of the U.S. and Israel. Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon – the basis of nuclear strategy would still apply. Whoever shoots first dies second. Whoever attacks the U.S. or Israel with a nuclear bomb might as well blow himself up right away. In terms of number the U.S. has the nuclear weaponry to kill 20 billion people. That means it could bring to cinder all 70+ million Iranians three hundred times over. Iran knows this and so does its leadership.

Iran has been attacked mind you with the help of the West, while she has not attacked any country for 300 years. This notion that Iran is a threat to any country, Israel, or the West is a farce of immense magnitude.

In view of such massive military superiority of the U.S., how can one compare a policy of engagement to the cowardly policy of appeasement if the current U.S. leadership stopped inventing more and more horror stories about Iran, or if it stopped bombing a path to the natural resources that it wants?

You seem to thing that by speaking to Iran, the United States is doing it a favor! It is the U.S. childish attitude that believes speaking with a country that it dislikes is considered appeasement and that it will embolden Iran.

Appeasement does not represent the greatest danger of our time; it is the patriotic Western armchair strategies that cling obstinately to their narrow minded view of the world and superiority who are letting the world slide into the same kind of foolhardy cycle of violence and counter violence that led to the First World War.

A significant flaw with the U.S. foreign policy is that it does not understand anything about the Middle Eastern psychology, and as one commentator has already said, specifically how to deal with Iran. Iran is not an Arab country, and they don’t react like the Arabs. The U.S. unfortunately has not learned how to master the art of effective diplomacy!!

You keep speaking about tougher sanctions. First of all the sanctions imposed on Iran are illegal, there is absolutely no basis for Iran’s case having been taken to the UNSC in the first place. Second of all the U.S. has already imposed 29 years of sanctions on Iran. If you are speaking about further sanctions to cripple the Iranian economy and strangle the Iranian people, this is the best way to alienate the only people in the Middle East who are pro-American. You are wrong to think that through further coercion and a harsher stance you will bring Iran and its people to their knees. The deepening isolation and coercion will further push Iran to look inward and radicalize a very moderate populace.

It is amazing that the U.S. keeps using the same failed strategy over and over again. This seems to be the only industry where perpetual incompetence can be viewed as success.

Common interests have been obscured by both sides indulgence in inflammatory rhetoric and incendiary remarks. The relationship between both countries has been muddied by emotional rather than rational thinking and mutual demonization. The U.S. and Iran have more in common than they are willing to admit.And unlike what others say on this site, even the Islamic Republic is not irrational; they would not have survived for 30 years if this was the case.

The Iran problem can be solved, not through harsher sanctions, or deepening isolation of Iran, but by the U.S. leadership sitting down at the negotiation table with the Iranian leadership for top bilateral talks.

If the U.S. truly wants a positive outcome with Iran, it has to look at normalization of its relationship with Iran; both diplomatic and economic. This can only be accomplished through effective dialogue with no preconditions. The purpose of any negotiations should not be to solve historical grievances, as both sides will have their laundry list of grievances against one another, but as means to move forward in forging a new relationship.

Iran has to see that its relationship with the U.S. means more to it than any other interest. Within this framework all concerns from both sides can then be placed on the table. However, you don’t start by demanding Iran to stop enrichment; refashioning the Iran/U.S. relationship starts from a top down policy and development of mutual trust and respect. Both sides want something from one another this will not occur unless some type of positive and rational relationship is developed.

Further sanctions, and forcing other countries to go along with U.S. arm twisting, and ultimately threatening Iran with a military attack is not going to bring about a positive result.

One important thing you should bear in mind, if all of these talks about dialogue and negotiations are really a sham, and only serve to gain a foothold in Iran, with the opening of a U.S. embassy and U.S. intelligence agents and CIA on the ground so that once inside the U.S. can create civil unrest, I can assure you the Iranians will figure this out very quickly. They are not easily fooled.

The Trojan Horse policy will not work. You should understand that unlike what some commentators say, don't let the turbans of the Mullah's fool you, they are still Persian, and they know ancient history pretty well. They can smell a rat from a long distance.

.

Dear masoudA

Nicely said. Sometimes we get so side tracked that we forget who we are fighting against. I find that amusing that since President Bush, Iran has become the most powerful country in the region. I think there is reason behind that. We need to reverse the policies and allow the Iranians think only about the dangers of IR rather than US or the west.

There are times I really believe that the people like the author of this article, are playing a game to put the powers in the hand of IR and suck our oils dry. Why else would they be doing this? I can't believe that they could be that dumb not to know the game!

I wonder:

Are the Mullahs that bad for the west? Maybe we should carefully do the cost benefit analysis and see truely if IR has been working for or against the west. Some might call it the theory of "toe-te-eh", I am not sure.

Here are some excerpt from

Here are some excerpt from NYBookreview of Dr. Trita Parsi's book,"Treaturous Alliance".

Mr. Parsi, unwittingly and flawlessly, illustrates why the U.S. should consider the Islamic Republic as a threat to its national and geopolitical interests in the region.

//www.nybooks.com/articles/20651

all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran's strategic victory is the most far-reaching. In establishing the border between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire in 1639, the Treaty of Qasr-i-Shirin demarcated the boundary between Sunni-ruled lands and Shiite-ruled lands. For eight years of brutal warfare in the 1980s, Iran tried to breach that line but could not. (At the time, the Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein precisely because it feared the strategic consequences of an Iraq dominated by Iran's allies.) The 2003 US invasion of Iraq accomplished what Khomeini's army could not. Today, the Shiite-controlled lands extend to the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Bahrain, a Persian Gulf kingdom with a Shiite majority and a Sunni monarch, is most affected by these developments; but so is Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, which is home to most of the kingdom's Shiites. (They may even be a majority in the province but this is unknown as Saudi Arabia has not dared to conduct a census.) The US Navy has its most important Persian Gulf base in Bahrain while most of Saudi Arabia's oil is under the Eastern Province.

In short, George W. Bush had from the first facilitated the very event he warned would be a disastrous consequence of a US withdrawal from Iraq: the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia. And while the President contrasts the promise of democracy in Iraq with the tyranny in Iran, there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in southern Iraq.

Iran's role in Iraq is pervasive, but also subtle. When Iraq drafted its permanent constitution in 2005, the American ambassador energetically engaged in all parts of the process. But behind the scenes, the Iranian ambassador intervened to block provisions that Tehran did not like. As it happened, both the Americans and the Iranians wanted to strengthen Iraq's central government. While the Bush administration clung to the mirage of a single Iraqi people, Tehran worked to give its proxies, the pro-Iranian Iraqis it supported—by then established as the government of Iraq—as much power as possible. (Thanks to Kurdish obstinacy, neither the US nor Iran succeeded in its goal, but even now both the US and Iran want to see the central government strengthened.)

Additionally, having read Mr. Ross's article for the second time, I have come to two conclusions:

1. The State department has reached a forgone conclusion that at this juncture, the U.S. cannot offer any incentive that the Islamic would need, and therefore, no negotiations are deemed necessary by the Islamic Republic leadership even if the U.S. agrees to an unconditional talks.

2. In order to create incentives artificially, the U.S. needs to ratched up it's effort and put back the military option on the table again as an inducement to bring the mullahs to the negotiation table....

That's my 2cents...

Well Mr. Anonymousk

I guess you have it all figured out, yet you change your mind at the end?

Empowering Iranian people is not a wrong thing to do. Whoever thinks that sanctions work is being lubricated by those who want to loop Iran into their game, back and forth, Islamic and/or Secular! To them it's a sick game of position of power.

Actually those who have an inhumane political agenda would find any excuse, maybe the same as yours, to deny the people their Rights. You and I don't live in Iran so you (and I) have no Rights to decide for my country and the Iranians inside, what's good for them.

Respecting people's life is more important to me than to agree with Bush and his gang's stupid games that endangers Iranian life and livelihood. I don't want Iranian people to suffer more than they have to. And by these anti Iranian ideas, they will, and IR will gain more power.

The author is a sick warmonger that you have seen the result of his thinking all throughout the Middle East today. If he had one bit of pride left, he would just shut up.

Abarmard !!

I know you are with us - but much of what we suffer from comes from within.   Anyways - I apologize for hurting the feelings of a teammate. 

The Islamic Regime is like an alchoholic  - and Iranian population are the step-child he hates.   Now the world wants to help the child - but to feed the child it must pay the alchoholic father! who is known to spend his money on everything other than the step-child !!!   you are pushing for more $$ to the father - who has now bought a gun and is shooting at the neighbors.  

I heared Israeli F16 used to

I heared Israeli F16 used to break the sound barrier in Gaza and other Palastinian territories, so that meant a lot of miscarriages, you see! So they offered 97% is just pure humbug. And Dear Abarmard, you are right, these people do not seem to understand a thing about Middle East OR they just know awfully well about everything in the ME! Now which is it?

mistaken facts

Dear Mehdi,
I just want to respectfully point out that the statement that "Israel & the US gave the late Arafat 97% of the territories of pre-1967" is absolutely not true. First, it is presumptous for Israel and the US to "give" the Palestinians anything as it was the Israelis who stole Palestinian land in 1948 and again in 1967 in contravention of international law (Query - why does Israel get away with not complying with international law and UN resolutions - but other countries (e.g. Iraq and Iran) are held to UN resolutions? I am not saying they shouldn't but surely we must be fair in our expectations of enforcement and not selective...).

Second, the land that was offered to Arafat was a non-contiguous mishmash of bantustans pockmarked by large settlement communities.

Also, don't discount how important the right of return and Jerusalem is to the Palestinian people. Arafat had to go back to his constituents with something they would agree to - otherwise it would have been all for nothing.

The misperception that Arafat was offered a great deal and refused it is just another lie that is told to make the Palestinians look like unreasonable fanatics. It is damaging to the peace process and doesn't promote a true and just resolution of the conflict.

Unfortunately, Mr. Ross is either actively perpetuating this and other misconceptions or has foolishly accepted them as facts - which is why he couldn't do much to promote the peace process.

One day, politicians will need to realize that in order to solve the problems in the Middle East, an understanding must occur of the actual facts on the ground and not the manufactured "truths" that are perpetuated in order to make one or another side appear "just" in their actions. But perhaps they know this already and their aim isn't to actually solve the problems. I am not convinced that the US or Israel think they will benefit from a stable and peaceful Middle East - I suspect there is a bit of the old "divide and conquer" mentality at work. In addition, I fear for the type of stable and peaceful Middle East the US and Israel might be actively hoping for - they typically throw their support behind corrupt dictators who oppress their people. I think the US/Israel percieve that it is not in their interest to have thriving democracies - look at what happened in Gaza where the first free elections resulted in widespread wins for Hamas. It is a short sighted but damaging view.

Kind Regards,
Kafah